Indeed. So, if we take the Hebrew particle "ehth" (which stands just before the word Goliath in the Hebrew text) as meaning "with, at, by, near" (which it sometimes and often means), then a strictly literal translation would be --
". . . Where Alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one with Goliath . . ."
or --
". . . Where alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one near Goliath . . ."
However, it must be understood that in this context the words "with" or "near" do NOT indicate spacial or locational connection, but indicate relational connection, that is -- one who was "with" or "near" Goliath in relationship (such as Goliath's brother).
Now, under the heading of this thread discussion, you presented this case as a "goof" or "booboo" in the King James translation. However, a strict consideration of the Hebrew text reveals that this is NOT a "goof" or "booboo" at all.
I am SURE that it is best to translate as most accurate to the original text as possible without engaging in outright conjecture. The Hebrew text does NOT say anything about a nickname anywhere, ether for Goliath himself or for the individual references in 2 Samuel 21:19. Therefore, I see no need to conjecture about it.

Hmmmm. The English language is known to have existed in three forms, each of which are viewed as being different enough to classify as different languages:
1. Classical English
2. Middle English
3. Elizabethan English (which is the very origin and foundation for the English that we speak today)
Now, the English language is indeed a living language, and thus every year it experiences changes in word creation and word nuances. Thus it may be acknowledged that present day English has some variations from the origins of Elizabethan English (primarily in the creation of many new words and word nuances). Yet the grammatical construction of the King James translation, which at present is that of the grammatical and spelling revision of 1769, is NOT contrary to the English of the modern day in wording or grammar. The grammar rules are the same. The word meanings, with very few exceptions, are the same. (But you could try to present a list of all the grammatical or word-meaning differences, if you desire.)

Interesting response, considering that it does NOT acknowledge the devil's work to create corruptions in the Scriptural TEXTS of God's Word. Allow me to repeat my above comments in a more organized and emphasized manner, so that you might see more clearly the point:
1. Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe.
2. But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the SAME basic TEXTUAL tradition?
3. Whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL tradition than those translational works that came before them?
4. Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the TEXTUAL and translational tradition that had come before?
5. As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us? (Specifically because those lines of translational work are founded upon TWO completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL traditions) (parenthetical added by Pastor Scott Markle)
6. As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of TEXTUAL and translational work.
7. But to follow the FIRST line of TEXTUAL and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people.
8. And to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us.
9. I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.
You see, until you acknowledge the TEXTUAL issue in this doctrinal debate, you will NOT have touched upon the foundational conflict of the debate and disagreement.

Yet I never indicated that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in an "original autograph" manner, that is -- preserving the original manuscripts themselves down to our time. Rather, I indicated the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, that is -- preserving the original WORDING of His perfect Word as it was perfectly given, which preservation can certainly be carried through manuscript copies as long as those manuscript copies are perfectly accurate to the original WORDING.
Indeed, I DO reject Sinaiticus & Vaticanus because:
1. They were NOT passed down to us through the stewardship of God's true church.
2. They were NOT available to and among God's true church for a multiple number of generations.
3. They disagree significantly with the textual material that was available and passed down from generation to generation through God's true church.
4. They disagree with each other in a VERY significant number of places.
As such, I would contend that they do NOT pass the test of acceptability in accord with the Biblical doctrine of preservation.
Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe. But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the same basic textual tradition, whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT textual tradition than those translational works that came before them? Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the textual and translational tradition that had come before? As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us? As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of textual and translational work; but to follow the FIRST line of textual and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people, and to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us. I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.
Throughout your various comments and responses in this discussion with me, you continually present faith in the Lord our God to preserve and provide His Word as He so pleases. Such faith is certainly right and good. However, throughout these comments and responses, I find a GLARING reality that you appear continually to disregard and neglect, even though I have referenced that reality a number of times. It is the reality of the devil's work to corrupt God's perfect Word, and thereby to deceive.

Ah, so the words of possible error are the italicized words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19.
First, let it be acknowledged that the King James translators did indeed italicize those words in order to indicate that those words are not precisely found in the original Hebrew, but are added for a grammatical and interpretational measure of the meaning. Second, whether the addition of those words is in error is really centered upon how we should take the Hebrew particle "ehth," that IS in the Hebrew original and that stands just before the name Goliath in that original Hebrew. Sometimes that Hebrew particle simply indicates the direct object of a verb, but other times that Hebrew particle indicates a relationship which may carry the meaning of "with, at, by, near." If the latter is the case in 2 Samuel 21:19, then the giant whom Elhanan slew was a giant who could be described relationally as being "with" Goliath, such as Goliath's brother. As such, the addition of the italicized words in the King James translation does NOT indicate an outright inaccuracy in translation. By definition translation work does require at least a small measure of interpretational work. You may not agree with the interpretational choice of the translators (such as when they chose to capitalize the word "Spirit" and when they chose not to). However, in the case of 2 Samuel 21:19 their translational choice is NOT inaccurate to the possible meaning of the Hebrew phrasing that is actually found in the Hebrew text.

Indeed, its faithfulness to its SOURCE would reveal if it is a valid translation of THAT source; but it would NOT reveal if the SOURCE ITSELF is a faithful source.
You see, the question of this matter is NOT whether a given translation is a faithful translation of a given source. Rather, the question of this matter is whether a given translation is a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD. In order for that to be the case, at least TWO things must be true:
1. The translation MUST be a faithful translation of its source.
2. The SOURCE ITSELF must be a faithful source of GOD"S PRESERVED WORD, without corruption and error.
Even if a translation is a faithful translation of its source, it is still NOT a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD if the source itself was not a faithful source of God's preserved Word, without corruption and error.

Ah, but the details within the Biblical doctrine of preservation help us to establish parameters by which to discern a valid or invalid Scriptural manuscript.
1. Since the Lord our God gave His PERFECT Word in the original writings thereof, and since the Lord our God promised to preserve that PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY number of variations among Scriptural manuscripts indicates SOME form of corruption therein. It does not necessarily reveal which "jot and tittle" is originally correct, but it DOES reveal the reality of corruption.
2. Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY corruptive variation among Scriptural manuscripts indicates that our adversary the DEVIL has had a hand in the matter, and thus that we should be on careful guard NOT to just accept ALL of these variations, but to be careful in discernment.
3. Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant more credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts that have been in available usage from generation to generation through the stewardship of the Israelites during the time of the Old Testament and through the stewardship of our Lord's true church since the time of the church age. (Note: The Roman Catholic "church" is NOT the Lord's true church.)
4. Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant much less credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts or textual families that have been discarded and/or hidden away from God's own people and true church for multiple generations.
Now, such a recognition is NOT an "automatic" dismissal of a Scriptural manuscript, but a careful discernment concerning a Scriptural manuscript that is based upon the DOCTRINAL foundation of Biblical preservation. On the other hand, any who create a textual philosophy that is NOT founded upon this doctrinal foundation are in error; and any who do not recognize the evil working of the devil to develop and spread corruption within God's perfect Word are in error.
In fact, from this perspective your own declared acceptance of ALL variations and your own neglect to refence and carefully consider the devil's corruptive work reveals your own position of ERROR.

As you have given answer above to my questions concerning the doctrine of preservation, allow me to do the same:
1. Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word? Most certainly.
2. If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word? In a "jot and tittle" manner.
3. If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word? To a generational extent, that is -- for each generation.
4. If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word? For the sake of His people.
5. If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word? Till heaven and earth should pass away.
Concerning the corollary questions:
1. What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word? He is VERY STRONGLY against it.
2. Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? Most certainly.
With these answers, I expect the following:
1. The Lord our God has and will make certain to preserve manuscripts (not necessarily originals) that contain the precise wording of His Word in the original languages.
2. These preserved manuscripts and copies thereof will be passed down generationally, first through the children of Israel for the Old Testament Scriptures and through the true church of the Lord for the addition of the New Testament Scriptures.
3. The devil has and will work to motivate various manmade alterations and corruptions unto the precise wording of God's Word, thus we should expect to encounter both pure Scriptural manuscripts and corrupt Scriptural manuscripts in competition with one another. (Note: This viewpoint would be defeated if we find that the Lord our God has promised to PREVENT the existence of any alterations or corruptions to the Scriptural manuscripts of His Word.)
Even so, I am compelled to following conclusions:
1. Not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted as the truth, for some of them contain corruption by the work of our adversary the devil.
2. Since not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted, I must discern which are valid and which are corrupt.
3. Any individual who claims that ALL manuscripts are valid simply misunderstands the reality of the devil's work of corruption in this matter.

The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation. In that study the following questions would be answered --
1. Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?
2. If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?
3. If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?
4. If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?
5. If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?
As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered --
1. What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?
2. Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word?
Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad. As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.

Again, for the sake of factual accuracy:
Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:
Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press
When quotations from the KJV text are used in materials not being made available for sale, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, presentation materials, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials KJV must appear at the end of the quotation.
Rights or permission requests (including but not limited to reproduction in commercial publications) that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to the Permissions Department, Cambridge University Press, University Printing House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, UK (https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/rights-permissions) and approved in writing.
Information acquired from the following site: https://www.cambridge.org/ad/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions

And that response reveals the foundational reason that you are open to multiple, various translations without any distinction in source or quality. Your doctrine of preservation appears basically to be the following:
1. God promised to preserve His Word.
2. ALL of the textual manuscripts of God's Word available to us today are the means by which God fulfilled His promise of preservation.
3. Since these textual manuscripts of God's Word contain multiple variations and differences, God must have intended ALL of these variations and differences to exist for us.
4. Even so, the best way for us to understand ALL of the variations and differences that God intended for us is to use multiple translations whereby we can encounter these differences.

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:
1. That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES. (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)
2. That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

I AM a proponent of the King James translation in opposition to the "modern translations," because of the difference in textual SOURCE for those translations. However, for the sake of factual accuracy, I am compelled to provide a corrective.
That is a factually accurate statement.
That is a factually inaccurate statement. It would be more accurate to say -- Anyone anywhere in the world, EXCEPT IN THOSE PLACES WHEREIN BRITISH LAW GOVERNS, is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.